Re: lawyer tells judge: 'Only Scientology law applies'

Interesting point (Martys blog).

Jim Logan | February 4, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Reply

Mike,
There is a case, 490 US 680, Hernandez vs Commisioner, wherein Dave argued the “doctrine of exchange”.

For the Florida instant case, Dave is estopped from denying that a central tenet of Scientology is “exchange” and the repayment request before the Court is for something NOT exchanged, i.e., undelivered services.

The Court doesn’t have to become “excessively entangled” into interpretation of church policy on refunds/repayments. All it has to do is cite the above case.

Funny thing this “estoppel”. While DM can contradict himself moment to moment as he runs amok at Int (and no amount of word-clearing of his PT orders only can make sense of what this dipshit spouts in contradiction to himself minute to minute), he CANNOT remove from the Court record what he’s said.

Bert and Lynne have every right to their money. Their “donation” for undelivered services withheld by the FSO is a violation of the “doctrine of exchange” which DM argued to the Supreme Court of the United States.

My Story - Becoming Free to ShineQUOTE OF THE YEAR: "I wasn't aware that a documentary (on scientology) was coming out but I'll be sure to not watch it." A Scientologist

Re: lawyer tells judge: 'Only Scientology law applies'

Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker

And unfortunately they have a valid argument per the terms of the contract. This is one of the dangers of the rush to end the 'abuses of trial lawyers' by politicians seeking to supplant the average citizens right to trial with 'binding arbitration'.

The contract as written lays out binding arbitration as the means of resolving the dispute. The Baumgarten both signed the contract, taking payment in 'due consideration'. Bother Baumgarten were adults presumed to be mentally competent at the time of signing. Ergo, their best hope is to find some means by which the agreement itself can be held to be invalid by the courts. That doesn't look like anything like remotely approaching to a 'sure thing'.

Mark A. Baker

Even though this isn't the Baumgarten thread, I'll put this out there anyway as it applies to all of these contract suits....

I'm pretty sure that Marty was in the court room for the substantive bit and the video was all about the procedural bit. In fact, all the shit about being in the Hole, beatings, broken fingers, etc., was all about procedural duress.

Or, in plain English, the judge wasn't allowing testimony of this shit because Perez Hilton was after it. And this is EXACTLY why all of us should want to see more of these contracts challenged.

"I'm not angry anymore, as more and more people rediscover their true selves through Scientology, together we WILL achieve a world without war, crime, and insanity." Rex Fowler, OTVII, before shooting his ex-partner three times in the head and then himself.

Re The contracts are a BLUFF

Fraud: An intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing or to surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words ot conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal inquiry; anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture; fraud comprises all acts, omissions, and concealments involving a branch of legal or equitable duty and resulting in damage to another.

Re: lawyer tells judge: 'Only Scientology law applies'

It's a good point that some of the posters here have not got their wits around.

Time will tell how these contracts work out for the cult, I was kinda thinking they'd be like swimming with an anvil in the end.

Well, certainly there is a strong presumption that a contract IS valid if it was signed by a sober adult of sound mind in exchange for due consideration. And you are allowed to give up rights in a contract situation (like I could sign a contract to not cuss and drink beer for a year).

But that is actually the beauty of the situation, imo. This is such a hard presumption to overcome that you need to air a ton of dirty laundry in order to prevail.

Re: lawyer tells judge: 'Only Scientology law applies'

Originally Posted by HelluvaHoax!

Thank God (again) for someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

One of my companies at any given time hold tens of thousands of contracts with clients, each of which has arbitration clauses that are (naturally) often tested by a certain category of lawyer looking for a fast nuisance lawsuit settlement. Over many years I have had actual experiences in a courtroom on this subject--not merely academic musings.

Where does Baker come up with this clownish authoritative stuff? LOL

When I read Baker's predictably amateurish diatribe, I just had to laugh and wonder how many people here on ESMB actually think his legal theories are not a joke.

Actually, I thought the joke runs a whole lot deeper than just his ( quasi ) legal theories.

But got to give him ..... he is seriously authoritative... just don't drink coffee while reading his pontifications posted on ESMB !

" Insist on yourself ; never imitate ".
Ralph Waldo Emerson

" Nothing is as at last scared but the integrity of your own mind "
Ralph Waldo Emerson